4 ms·

If the list is to exist at all, it should only be for people we think might blow up or hijack an airplane. If you're putting people on the list for other reaso

If the list is to exist at all, it should only be for people we think might blow up or hijack an airplane. If you're putting people on the list for other reasons, even selling weapons to terrorists, then the list is being used punitively and therefore it shouldn't be secret.

recursive 4y ago
It doesn't really seem like a different reason to me. I mean, I have no background in this stuff, but someone who sells weapons to terrorists, seems like a reasonable risk to do the actual thing to me.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  It's the difference between somebody selling weapons to other people to blow up airplanes, and being willing to blow themselves up in an airplane. The former does not evidence an inclination for the latter.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  The standard of evidence for violating the principle of innocent until proven guilty is not satisfied by reasonable risk, it is satisfied by beyond a reasonable doubt. Since they are violating that principle without trial I would argue the standard is actually much higher. This idea of innocent until proven guilty via a trial of your peers is one of the basic building blocks of western society and a pivotal part of what makes the West great so if we aren't going to uphold this idea, wtf are we even doing? Might as well just name someone the king and start trials by ordeal again.
  - recursive 4y ago
    As far as I can tell, he's not a US citizen. And no guilt seems to be under discussion here. Just whether he's allowed to fly. I once saw a guy get kicked off a bus for being too drunk without so much as a call to his lawyer. This isn't about sending him to prison as far as I know. Just keeping flights safe.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      Well, if the person isn't on the no fly list due to some form of guilt then the government is violating a myriad of other human rights including, but not limited to, the freedom of movement. There is also a massive difference between someone temporarily being denied the ability to ride the bus due to clearly being too drunk and someone being put on a list that bars them from flying permanently with no recourse and no way to even know they are on the list other than to buy a plane ticket and attempt to board the plane. Keeping flights safe is an appeal to emotion that has no place in this discussion because it presupposes doing a no fly list in a way that doesn't violate the basic principles that define the United States of America would be unsafe, which is clearly untrue.

recursive 4y ago

It doesn't really seem like a different reason to me. I mean, I have no background in this stuff, but someone who sells weapons to terrorists, seems like a reasonable risk to do the actual thing to me.

LarryMullins 4y ago
It's the difference between somebody selling weapons to other people to blow up airplanes, and being willing to blow themselves up in an airplane. The former does not evidence an inclination for the latter.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
snapplebobapple 4y ago
The standard of evidence for violating the principle of innocent until proven guilty is not satisfied by reasonable risk, it is satisfied by beyond a reasonable doubt. Since they are violating that principle without trial I would argue the standard is actually much higher. This idea of innocent until proven guilty via a trial of your peers is one of the basic building blocks of western society and a pivotal part of what makes the West great so if we aren't going to uphold this idea, wtf are we even doing? Might as well just name someone the king and start trials by ordeal again.
- recursive 4y ago
  As far as I can tell, he's not a US citizen. And no guilt seems to be under discussion here. Just whether he's allowed to fly. I once saw a guy get kicked off a bus for being too drunk without so much as a call to his lawyer. This isn't about sending him to prison as far as I know. Just keeping flights safe.
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    Well, if the person isn't on the no fly list due to some form of guilt then the government is violating a myriad of other human rights including, but not limited to, the freedom of movement. There is also a massive difference between someone temporarily being denied the ability to ride the bus due to clearly being too drunk and someone being put on a list that bars them from flying permanently with no recourse and no way to even know they are on the list other than to buy a plane ticket and attempt to board the plane. Keeping flights safe is an appeal to emotion that has no place in this discussion because it presupposes doing a no fly list in a way that doesn't violate the basic principles that define the United States of America would be unsafe, which is clearly untrue.